Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 October 19

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

The above page was deleted for being too promotional. I would like the opportunity to make the page neutral and more notable. Thanks. Martin Tide (talk) 13:53, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious endorse. AfD was unanimous and emphatic. Suggest this be speedy closed. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:31, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Both the version created by the requester here at CVS (Business Rent & Rates) to evade scrutiny during the AFD and the nearly-identical one recreated at the original title by Lordkneel afterwards could have been speedied as spam. Both were steps backward from the one originally created by Cvssurveyors. If you're serious about getting an article for your company here, you're going to have to 1) immediately declare your (blindingly obvious) conflict of interest as required by our terms of use; 2) provide actual in-depth on-topic third-party (preferably non-local) coverage, not the press releases and barely-even-reworded copies of press releases you did before; and 3) demonstrate that you can write in a remotely encyclopedic tone instead of the advertisements you already inflicted on us. —Cryptic 00:45, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Unused local copies of files on Commons – The problem is that the policy is unclear enough the any closer is pretty much going to have to make it up on the hoof and this discussion has not really moved that position forward. Usually, we would relist if the outcome isn't clear or feels unsatisfactory but I can't see that will improve matters either as the next close will have the same problem. I'm therefore closing this as no action but suggest to the nominator that they open an RFC to garner wider input into what our policy should be for keep local images. – Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:01, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

Unused local copies of files on Commons. The keep rationale by the closing administrator was that the files were tagged with the {{Keep local}} template. However, the only policy page that mentions this template is WP:CSD, which states that files tagged with this template are not eligible for speedy deletion under criteria F8. They are still eligible for deletion under other criteria. These files should have been deleted under under the Wikipedia policy WP:NOTWEBHOST, which says that files not in use will be deleted. Kelly ^hi! 08:39, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:NOTHOST was not mentioned in any of the FFD nominations. If the discussion doesn't mention that part of the policy, I'm not sure if we should expect the closing admin to remember or consider that part of the WP:NOT policy. If this is to be considered 'new information', the files could maybe be relisted at FFD. --Stefan2 (talk) 10:29, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, though the nominations did mention that they were unused, which is given as a reason for deletion in the WP:FFD instructions. Kelly ^hi! 10:36, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
overturn As the {{keeplocal}} template explicitly entertains the idea that images may still be deleted "If you desire to nominate it for deletion, notify the tagging editor", closers rationale amounts to a supervote based on their own opinion that keeplocal is in some way binding and/or the result of previous deletion discussions creates a binding precedent, neither is true. --86.2.216.5 (talk) 16:48, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by closing administrator. There is a lot more to this issue than what's on the surface, and it does not surprise me that there is no mention of it here. It begins with the {{Keep local}}, which has been nominated for deletion three separate times (1 2 3) since 2009; discussion resulted in keep in all three occasions. Consensus best expressed as to why the template and its usage were justifiable in the second nomination discussion, which I recommend reading. My closures of the above discussions were based off of that, so to accuse me of a supervote is terribly misguided and stems from a place of bad faith.

Two of the images linked above were previously nominated and deleted in the past despite one opposition (1 2), which were later undeleted by User:Nyttend, who cited the Keep local template; I noted this in my closures for those two files (1 2).

Consensus of the viewpoints on the aforementioned template has not changed, or at best, has not been fundamentally reversed. The nominator attempted to start an information RFC at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#F8 - "Keep local" tags, which ultimately proved to be fruitless. I haven't closed any similar nominations since the ones listed, which continue to get pumped into WP:FFD. That has only facilitated the growth of the backlog there. The most comprehensive attempt in trying to get rid of these files comes from this nomination, where more than 80 images by User:Bedford are up for deletion. The uploader still argues to keep them, and has cited this issue as the reason why they don't frequent the project as often.

As I mentioned in the informal RFC, I would have no problem abiding by the consensus if it dictated to delete images despite being tagged with the template. But no such consensus has been established, which should be the main concern to be resolved before nominating countless of files for deletion. — ξ ^xplicit 05:27, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"so to accuse me of a supervote is terribly misguided and stems from a place of bad faith." please withdraw your accusation of my mentioning supervote as being bad faith - I have no idea what you base that on, but it's bollocks. My comment is based on your closing statement of the review, which is very terse and mentions pretty much none of the other stuff you list here. If you don't want your closes to appear as i have read them, the solution is to provide more cpmplete closes. pathetic. --86.2.216.5 (talk) 18:22, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A TfD discussion can't change policy, and policy mentions files with {{keep local}}. TfD can't do anything apart from placing red links instead of a template on the pages using the template, and it is obvious that it is inappropriate to have red links on lots of pages. Therefore, there was no other possible outcome of the TfD nominations.

WP:F8 is, as far as I can tell, the only part of policy where the template is mentioned at all. Other policies, such as policies for deletion discussions, seem to be silent on the matter, although it seems to be clear that files with copyright problems which have this template are to be deleted. For example, you (User:Explicit) deleted a number of files with {{keep local}} at PUF one or two days ago. When a file is listed at FFD, I think that it needs to be carefully evaluated: Why is the local file being kept? Is it kept for the purpose of violating WP:NOTHOST, or is there some other reason? There was a recent request at WP:REFUND which was declined citing WP:NOTHOST. Is someone taking care of the huge task of keeping the local file and the Commons file synchronised? It is inappropriate if we have one 'up-to-date copy' and one 'outdated copy' for a long time. For example, there is another editor who has posted a number of low-resolution copies of files to Wikipedia with {{keep local}} with a higher resolution copy under the same name on Commons, with no attempts having been made to upload the high-resolution copy to Wikipedia for several years. We currently have one of those files at FFD at Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2015 October 3#File:Suffolk CWGC Cemetery 1848793584.jpg. I note that the FFD nominations do not discuss these issues, though. A problem with discussions which attract little attention from other editors, I suppose. --Stefan2 (talk) 10:23, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse - nominations with no rationale for deletion that are huge violations of the general principle that we shouldn't treat other editors with unmitigated contempt for no encyclopaedic reason should be closed with no action. Wily D 09:57, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody is treating anyone with contempt here. And the page you linked also says "no editor owns an article and any contributions can and will be mercilessly edited and redistributed." Kelly ^hi! 10:26, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you are. If you had any consideration for your fellow editors whatsoever, you wouldn't nominate {{keeplocal}}ed files for deletion unless the request was in bad faith, and you wouldn't hound admins who are protecting others from your uncivil, uncollegial, hostile actions. You'd apologise to those editors from having behaved like a jerk, and endeavor not to treat them (or any of your other fellow editors) with this kind of contempt in the future. There's no upside to deleting these files (certainly none has been raised). It's merely thoughtless smashing of what other editors are doing. By aggressively trying to smash what other editors are doing - and for no encyclopaedic reason - you're treating them with utter contempt. Wily D 10:03, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So by researching, improving, and generally cleaning up the file pages of this user's uploads, and making them more widely available and encouraging their use on other articles and projects, I've "thoughtlessly smashed" his contributions? All righty then. Kelly ^hi! 10:36, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, by ignoring the reasonable requests of other Wikipedians in order to accomplish nothing worthwhile, you're treating them with contempt. There's no upside here. Your requests don't accomplish anything good - if these files had been deleted, those contributors would've been treated like dirt, and absolutely nothing good would have been accomplished. If you think fiddling around with where files are located is more important than giving consideration to your fellow editors, I don't see how we can have a dialogue about why being collegial is important in a group project. Wily D 16:59, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I have no doubt that everyone involved is acting in good faith, especially Explicit. The only reason I raised this is that I believe the decision is an incorrect interpretation of policy. {{Keep local}} only applies to speedy deletion, not the FFD process. There's no other policy or guideline that would suggest it allows users to keep unused photos here in violation of WP:NOTHOST.

It's unfortunate that Bedford has all but stopped participating here, as he was a prolific and valuable editor. So far as I can determine, years ago he took a lot of photos of historic markers and uploaded them here; someone else subsequently moved them to Commons. There were multiple mistakes in that process, as the markers were under copyright and Bedford's photos were derivative and therefore non-free. This should have been spotted by the person(s) making the moves and/or the admin(s) deleting the local copies and it wasn't. The files were subsequently deleted at Commons, which apparently upset Bedford, and he seems to have marked all of his contributions with {{Keep local}} as a result. However, the images would almost certainly have been deleted here even if never moved to Commons.

Regardless of the reason these files were tagged, the fact is the 6 files listed above are not used anywhere on the project and there's no reason to keep them per WP:NOT. They are certainly potentially useful which is the reason I've copied them to Commons. But the local file information pages have not been maintained or updated since upload. See, for instance, File:Citizens' Trust Company Building.JPG and the Commons equivalent - the latter has geolocation information, information regarding its status as a building on the National Register of Historic Places, links to photos of the same building, and a link to its record in the archives of the National Park Service. The local file has none of these. We want our site visitors to land on the most complete and up-to-date page. I'm not seeing any reason, either by policy or by common sense, to keep these local copies. With respect - Kelly ^hi! 10:13, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse The interpretation of the policy at NOTWEBHOST doesn't seem unambiguous: "Please upload only files that are used (or will be used) in encyclopedia articles or project pages; anything else will be deleted. If you have extra relevant images, consider uploading them to the Wikimedia Commons, where they can be linked from Wikipedia.". I would tend to regard it possibly reasonable to interpret " used or will be used" to include anything with a reasonable potential use. There needs to be a proper discussion of this issue in general. DGG ( talk ) 17:28, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have taken a look at a number of policies to see what they say about the matter. WP:F8 says that files with {{keep local}} may not be speedily deleted as Commons dupes. However, the speedy deletion is only for unambiguous situations where it is obvious that a page should be deleted. WP:F8 also notes that files with copyright problems can't be deleted under F8 either. Such files typically get a normal PUF discussion which mirrors a deletion discussion on Commons, unless the files qualify for fair use or for deletion under a "copyright problem criterion" (F3, F4, F9 or F11). You can compare this to WP:A7 and WP:A9. The CSD policy identifies a few situations where it is very unlikely that an article meets the notability criterion, and such articles may be speedily deleted. Other articles which appear to fail the notability criterion do not qualify for speedy deletion, but the speedy deletion criteria do not prevent such articles from being deleted at AfD. The note about the {{keep local}} template seems to imply that it isn't obvious that files with {{keep local}} should be deleted (and that speedy deletion therefore shouldn't apply), but does not rule out deletion at other venues. FFD is one venue where files may be deleted under criteria other than the speedy deletion criteria. For example, files which violate WP:NOTHOST may be deleted at FFD, but they may not be speedily deleted (except in very special cases: WP:F10).

Wikipedia:Deletion policy makes no mention of the {{keep local}} template, so I assume that requests for deletion of {{keep local}} files as Commons dupes at FFD should be individually evaluated and that the user who closes the discussion should determine the consensus of the discussion. WP:FFD states that requests at FFD may be closed as 'delete' if no objections have been raised within seven days. No objections were raised – no one chose to comment on the deletion rationale – so 'delete' was a valid outcome. WP:QUORUM states that the discussion 'may be closed at the closer's discretion and best judgment', so 'keep' and 'no consensus' also seem to be valid outcomes. It looks as if the closing administrator therefore essentially has the authority to supervote when there are no follow-up comments at FFD: the closing administrator can choose any of 'keep', 'delete' and 'no consensus'. To avoid unnecessary abuse of power, I think that we should have a very low barrier for relisting file deletion discussions which received few comments, a point I also stated at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 October 8 about a file which was deleted for a completely different reason after very little discussion. In this situation, it may, as I note below, be a good idea to discuss a few things at WP:VPP and amend policy, and it may be better to wait with any potential relisting of discussions until after policy discussion has been held. It may also be a good idea to postpone closing currently ongoing FFD nominations until after such a discussion has been held.

A few of the files were discussed at FFD in 2012 where User:Fastily closed the sections as 'delete'. In 2015, User:Explicit decided to close all discussions as 'keep'. As policy seems to allow the closer to choose any of 'keep' and 'delete', both Fastily's and Explicit's closures seem to be within policy, so I suppose that we should endorse the closure of the deletion requests for the files which had not previously been listed at FFD.

As noted by User:Explicit, a few of the files were deleted by Fastily and then restored by User:Nyttend. As Fastily's deletions of the files seem to have been in compliance with policy, Nyttend's undeletions seem to have been incorrect. However, given the fact that User:Kelly later listed the files at FFD a second time, it is the outcome of the second FFD which should determine the files' presence on Wikipedia. I think that it was impressive of Explicit to note that the files previously had been deleted. The old discussions were not mentioned in the second discussions, and there was no {{oldffdfull}} template on the file talk pages. I think that Kelly and Nyttend disagreeing on whether the file should be on Wikipedia, and the apparent lack of a policy discussing what to do with files like this at FFD, should have invalidated any 'keep' or 'delete' closure of those files. The discussions should either have been relisted for another week or closed as 'no consensus'. Therefore, overturn those closures to 'no consensus'.

I don't think that it is very useful if admins freely can choose any of 'keep' and 'delete'. I that we need to go to WP:VPP or some other suitable venue to clarify a few things related to the {{keep local}} template and amend policy:

When may the template be used on files? Looking at the TfD nominations, some of the users requesting to keep the template seem to think that it should be possible to use the template indiscriminately, while others mention specific situations in which the template may be used. WP:OWN suggests that no one has the sole authority to decide that a template must or mustn't appear on a specific page, so I take it that there are some situations in which the template may be removed from file information pages, although it is unclear when you have one of those situations. I suppose that you could theoretically start a request for comment on a file talk page and try to find consensus on whether the template should be on the file information page or not, but I don't think that it would beneficial for the project to start 4,637 different requests for comments to have the template removed from all files.
Should it matter if the tagging editor is active on Wikipedia or not? I have recently seen some users boldly removing the {{keep local}} template from files uploaded by editors who no longer seem to be active on Wikipedia, and I'm not sure if this is the correct way to go. It sounds like a good method for starting heated conflicts.
How should FFD handle requests to delete files with {{keep local}} as Commons duplicates? Since policy seems to be silent on the matter, it seems that admins often get the choice to pick any of 'keep' and 'delete', and this seems to turn FFD more into a 'lottery process' which I think is detrimental to everyone involved. The outcome should ideally depend as little as possible on who the closing admin happens to be. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:11, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn and relist. I see two problems with the closes:
1. Lack of participation: I know wp:FFD is not one of the most popular hangouts on the site, but there was NO participation except for the nominator in any of them. In cases like this, if the closer is going to bring new reasoning to the discussion, the closer should contribute to the discussion themselves and let others close it.
2. Invalid reasoning: The closer's rationale is based on Template:Keep local, which only impedes speedy deletion. It is not at all binding, and cannot be used to justify even a keep !vote, let alone a closure.
Please note that I do not call into question the good faith of the closer or the nominator.--Aervanath (talk) 11:29, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.